Baseball Salary Cap Poll (Amount)

[eastender]

The debate about a baseball "Salary Cap" has been around for more than a decade. If you feel that a "Salary Cap" is appropriate for MLB then you should have an opinion as to the approximate dollar value of the proposed "Salary Cap". This poll features 5 options please choose one and if you wish support your choice with an explanation.

I will not comment in this thread until the poll closes.

 

[Doc Holliday]

The difference between the Yankees & the rest of MLB is so huge that it`s difficult to place a number of where the cap should be. I figured i`d draw a line in the middle & have a minimum of $60 million & a maximum of $80 million. If one of the options would have been between $60 million & $100 million, i probably would have picked this option instead. Here`s a list of the 2006 payrolls for those who want to look at it first (i wasn`t able to obtain a list for 2007):

http://www.sportsline.com/mlb/salaries

 

[rumpleforeskiin]

This is really quite a silly poll. Without knowing what total revenues are, both those of individual teams and those that are shared (revenue sharing, licensing, visiting team shares of gate receipts, national media), as well as expenditures, no one here can begin to suggest a dollar amount.

Certainly the teams are entitled to a reasonable profit, but without seeing the numbers, no one here can reasonably suggest how much should be spent on payroll.

Several years ago, in one of his books, Roger Kahn published a simplified balance sheet for the Brooklyn Dodgers of 1953. I forget the numbers, but three things stick out in my mind. Revenues were approximately $5,000,000, payroll was approximately $400,000, profit was approximately $3,000,000. After exploiting the players for 100 years, free from the restraints of trade to which other businesses are subject, the owners got what was coming to them with the advent of free agency.

 

[Doc Holliday]

In my own opinion there is not an athelete today in any sport that is worth more then one million per year. Doctors that study for years and save lives are worth more then an athlete any day of the week.

True, but doctors don't have 40 000 people paying to see them ply their trade every night. I agree that 99% of professional athletes are overpaid for what they do. However, there are exceptions, such as Tiger Woods & Michael Jordan. What they bring & have brought to their sports is priceless. They also have earned millions for their sports (and in Jordan's case....the Bulls) in endorsements & brought in new fans. But the bottom line in all of this is that it's ridiculous that it'll take me years to make what an unknown bench warmer makes in a year.

As for a salary cap, i don't see MLB having one soon. Most of the owners pulling the strings don't want one, neither do the players.

 

[korbel]

Realism.

This is really quite a silly poll. Without knowing what total revenues are, both those of individual teams and those that are shared (revenue sharing, licensing, visiting team shares of gate receipts, national media), as well as expenditures, no one here can begin to suggest a dollar amount.

Hello all,

Eastender, thanks for starting this poll. I thought about doing this myself and I am happy to see it come up for debate.

As Rumpleforeskiin suggests there is a lot to consider. But if we look at the current median team salaries and consider the realities about trying to cut back the median rates to that of the poorest teams I think we can find a reasonable place to start. I for one have never been against profits as Eagerbeaver seemed to suggest, as long as the profits made in a players name are spread to the playrs above there playing salaries and all others whose name useage from team marketing creates further profits. I only wish to bring those profits into the realm of sensible parameters and give all teams a better chance to enjoy them. I do use the word "chance" here purposely because obviously there can be no guarantees with all the possible variables inherent in the sports arena. But when some teams can create de facto entrenched dynastic monopolies, and some players like Clemens and A-Rod are being or will be paid the salaries equivalent or exceeding the entire salary of some teams, then we have reached a point of insanity.

I am not doing the kind of comprehensive analysis that Eastender and Rumpleforeskiin seem so adept at. My basis for voting is more simplistic based on a limited overview of current team salaries. I recognize there is far more to it. But the reality is that even if a saslary cap was endorsed by everyone it could never be cut so that the poorest team would be on completely equal terms with those in the strongest markets. That would be nice in a perfect world. But given the current numbers I feel that somewhere between 70,000,000-90,000,000 is realistic. Given the current range of salaries this range would cut deep enough into the "dynastic abusers" and still not be so far above most of the poorest teams that their chance to compete for some of the better players would not be a foregone
loss. Once teams like the Red Sox and Yankees can no longer have such excessive access to the better talent in the league even the poorest teams should have an opportunity to expand profits and create a more balanced range of competition. In any case, just as there should be no monpoly on talent and profits, there should be no pandering to the lowest common denominator either. In the end it's still a business and all need to step up just no teams should be able to monopolize the markets endlessly.

Now you super sports experts out there...this is just my so-called "blue collar feel" for things. So come at me with your rocket science baseball analysis and I will do the best I can....lol.

Hit me with it,

Korbel

Team Salaries 2007;

NY Yankees=195,229,045
Boston=143,123,714
NY Mets=116,115,819
Chicago Sox=109,290,167
LA Angels=109,251,333
LA Dodgers=108,704,524
Seattle=106,516,833
Chicago Cubs=99,936,999
Detroit=95,180,369
Baltimore=95,107,808
San Francisco=90,469,056
St. Louis=90,286,823
Atlanta=89,492,685
Philadelphia=89,368,213
Houston=87,759,500
Oakland=79,938,369
Toronto=79,925,600
Milwaukee=71,986,500
Minnesota=71,439,500
Cincinnati=69,654,980
Texas=68,818,675
Kansas City=67,366,500
Cleveland=61,289,667
San Diego=58,235,567
Colorado=54,424,000
Arizona=52,067,546
Pittsburgh=38,604,500
Washington=37,347,500
Florida=30,507,000
Tampa Bay=24,124,200

 

[rumpleforeskiin]

Team Salaries 2007;

NY Yankees=195,229,045

Plus some fat old redneck with a mediocre ERA who was not on the opening day roster. Tack on some 18,000,000.

 

[korbel]

Plus some fat old redneck with a mediocre ERA who was not on the opening day roster. Tack on some 18,000,000.

Hello Rumpleforeskiin,

LOL...AGREED!!!!!!!! What a precedent for a new breed of baseball money pigs who come after the season starts, sells themselves for insane bucks from their Steinpimpers and get paid no matter how bad they SUCK!

Vomit,

Korbel

 

[korbel]

Oops.. didn't realise the ChiSox were fourth on the list in spending, beating out who knows how many countries annual GDP? Still, people pay money to see the players pay - the owners are already making out like bandits, why should they get more? A cap has to go hand in hand with revenue sharing to be truly effective. And that ain't never gonna happen...

Hello DITD,

Agreed...so what's the next detail we should cover?

As for the ChiSox, with the 2nd longest World Series drought I was very happy to see them win it all in 2005. But it does show like others team how the championships follow too closely to the money. Now maybe if the Cubs would spend just $63,001 more they could reach the magic $100,000,000 mark and end the longest World Series victory drought in baseball.

Go Cubs...spend...lol,

Korbel

 

[Chucksterb]

Korbel, the list you posted does not include the Salary for Clemens. That puts The Yankees at around 210 million. It must be great to be Clemens $18 million for roughly half a season.

 

[korbel]

No

Clemens's salary is based $18 million per season...If he plays half the season he only gets half of the $18 million.

Hello Chuchsterb and Tex,

Chucksterb, I knew Clemens was not included on the amount reported here, so you are right. Matsuzaka is included for the Red Sox.

Tex, no, actually Clemens was signed at a rate of $28,000,000 for a full year. He is getting $18,000,000 for the shortened season, roughly 64% 0f the $28,000,000.

All teams above are listed accfording to their opening day payroll as far as I know.

Cheers,

Korbel

 

[eastender]

Thank you

Thank you for voting in the poll and ignoring the efforts of a pseudo expert, throwing a Donald Duck style tantrum, to dissuade you from doing so.

In the upcoming days I will be making a few posts examining the numbers and the concepts involved in a "Salary Cap".

Thanks again.

 

[eastender]

Salary Cap - Image and Marketing

One of the problems MLB faces with the concept of a "Salary Cap" is one of image and marketing.

A "Salary Cap" below the NFL cap - set at approximately $109 million per team and MLB faces a major image and marketing problem.

Historically baseball, more specifically MLB has been perceived and marketed as THE American sport. A "Salary Cap" slightly above/at/below the NHL Salary Cap and you have a perception that MLB has slipped to the level of a foreign,regional, niche sport.

Even within 10% of the NFL cap the perception of MLB slippage will exist.

Without a "Salary Cap", MLB does not have an image and marketing problem.
Both the players and owners can stand behind pure capitalism,argue market forces, define and re-define small markets to suit the situation any given year, brag about teams spending twice the NFL cap while defending thos that are significantly under.

 

[rumpleforeskiin]

Thank you all for voting in this poll. Certainly those of you who have voted have seen the books of the clubs and know what would be a fair figure, a reasonable portion of total revenues. Certainly, as well, to vote in this moronic poll without said knowledge would be to cast an idiotic vote.

While I don't pretend to have the knowledge to cast a vote in this poll, I do know that the owners would absolutely love those who voted. All of those who voted cast ballots for a figure under $100,000,000. While I don't have any more access to the books than those who voted, I do know enough to know that all of those who voted for the two lowest options voted for a massive increase in profits for the clubs.

 

[eastender]

Contract Insurance

Plus some fat old redneck with a mediocre ERA who was not on the opening day roster. Tack on some 18,000,000.

Opening day salaries do not factor in contract insurance. So to be accurate you would have to deduct the total contract insurance paid-out for players like Matsui,Giambi,Pavano who spent time on the injured list.

Do you have information that the Yankees did not collect any contract insurance for injured players? Either way it looks like you posted without having full information.

 

[rumpleforeskiin]

Opening day salaries do not factor in contract insurance. So to be accurate you would have to deduct the total contract insurance paid-out for players like Matsui,Giambi,Pavano who spent time on the injured list.

Do you have information that the Yankees did not collect any contract insurance for injured players? Either way it looks like you posted without having full information.

Magnificent post. We're talking about player salaries and from out of the sky you drop some non-sequitur about contract insurance. When did contract insurance enter this discussion and exactly what does it have to do with it?

Have you ever considered a career in doubletalk?

(Oh, for the record, neither you nor I know on which players the Yankees took out contract insurance, nor do we know what the premiums were, nor does that have anything whatsoever to do with this discussion.)

 

[eastender]

Contract Insurance

Magnificent post. We're talking about player salaries and from out of the sky you drop some non-sequitur about contract insurance. When did contract insurance enter this discussion and exactly what does it have to do with it?

Have you ever considered a career in doubletalk?

(Oh, for the record, neither you nor I know on which players the Yankees took out contract insurance, nor do we know what the premiums were, nor does that have anything whatsoever to do with this discussion.)

Contract insurance is an integral feature of payroll and as such is part of the payroll and/or salary cap discussion.

Any contract insurance collected would reduce the payroll hit for injured players.Effectively any contract insurance collected could be used by a team towards salaries for players who replace injured players. Your assumption that the Clemens salary is a straight add-on does not take contract insurance into account and any conclusions drawn risk being wrong.

Just worry about what you know or don't know. Making assumptions about what others know is not very wise.

 

[rumpleforeskiin]

Contract insurance is an integral feature of payroll and as such is part of the payroll and/or salary cap discussion.

Any contract insurance collected would reduce the payroll hit for injured players.Effectively any contract insurance collected could be used by a team towards salaries for players who replace injured players. Your assumption that the Clemens salary is a straight add-on does not take contract insurance into account and any conclusions drawn risk being wrong.

Just worry about what you know or don't know. Making assumptions about what others know is not very wise.

Congratulations on your work. In the field of bullshit, with a minor in obfuscation, EE, you're an artist of the first order. You know I've read many articles on this subject and you're the first to ever try to obscure the conversation with bullshit about contract insurance.

Yes, some teams take out insurance on some player contracts. However, as you can bet your bottom dollar that the insurance companies are turning a profit on said insurance, that insurance, in the long run, actually increases the cost of player contracts. And, insurance has nothing to whatsoever to do with the levy of luxury tax on payroll.

 

[rumpleforeskiin]

Here's a link to the best collection of information on the web relating to player contracts. You'll notice how much space is given over here to the discussion of insurance premiums on the contracts of the players of each of the 30 teams. That would be none.

BTW, if you're aware of the way the insurance industry works, you'd be aware of the simple fact that the premiums paid for insurance are substantially higher than the payouts to the insured. After operating expenses, this remaining sum would be called "profit." "Profit" is the primary reason these insurance companies are in business.

http://mlbcontracts.blogspot.com/

 

[eastender]

Obfuscating by Rumples

Congratulations on your work. In the field of bullshit, with a minor in obfuscation, EE, you're an artist of the first order. You know I've read many articles on this subject and you're the first to ever try to obscure the conversation with bullshit about contract insurance.

Yes, some teams take out insurance on some player contracts. However, as you can bet your bottom dollar that the insurance companies are turning a profit on said insurance, that insurance, in the long run, actually increases the cost of player contracts. And, insurance has nothing to whatsoever to do with the levy of luxury tax on payroll.

So the short answer is that you do not know if the Yankees took out contract insurance or not.

Also we are not discussing luxury tax or the mechanics of payroll in MLB.

Nor are we discussing the insurance industry. Your overly simplistic explanation of insurance fails to take into account that while the insurance companies profit from a specific type of insurance globally an individual unit may benefit greatly.

Example a young family buying mortgage insurance on their first home
would have the mortgage paid-off in the case of the death of a spouse.
The insurance company may take a hit in this specific instance but profits overall.

 

[rumpleforeskiin]

So the short answer is that you do not know if the Yankees took out contract insurance or not.

That would be true. The slightly longer answer is that I don't really give a shit because it has nothing whatsoever to do with this discussion.